CDZ The Senate and Supreme Court nominations

[2aguy]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

And Trump wouldn't last past December and he was never going to be the nominee.......jeb bush and his 140 million dollars was going to be the nominee....

 

[2aguy]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Congress sets up the number of justices, not the President......they could reduce the court to one Justice if they wanted....

 

[JakeStarkey]

This problem is essentially one of the primacy of separation of powers.

SCOTUS could tell the Senate has to hold a hearing, and Senate can go, "nope, you can't make me."

The court will never have a hearing on this matter in order not to be told, "nope" with impunity.

 

[2aguy]

Congress...not the President....sets up the court system.....

Article III

 

[JakeStarkey]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

And Trump wouldn't last past December and he was never going to be the nominee.......jeb bush and his 140 million dollars was going to be the nominee....

And then Trump got the nomination and where are we at now, sunshine?

 

[2aguy]

This problem is essentially one of the primacy of separation of powers.

SCOTUS could tell the Senate has to hold a hearing, and Senate can go, "nope, you can't make me."

The court will never have a hearing on this matter in order not to be told, "nope" with impunity.

No.....SCOTUS can't......the congress sets up the court system including the Supreme court....read Article 3 of the Constitution.......they could say the SCOTUS will have 1000 justices or just one...

 

[2aguy]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

And Trump wouldn't last past December and he was never going to be the nominee.......jeb bush and his 140 million dollars was going to be the nominee....

And then Trump got the nomination and where are we at now, sunshine?

With him getting real close to being President...and maybe even crossing the finish line ...remember where you are posting...

 

[JakeStarkey]

This problem is essentially one of the primacy of separation of powers.

SCOTUS could tell the Senate has to hold a hearing, and Senate can go, "nope, you can't make me."

The court will never have a hearing on this matter in order not to be told, "nope" with impunity.

No.....SCOTUS can't......the congress sets up the court system including the Supreme court....read Article 3 of the Constitution.......they could say the SCOTUS will have 1000 justices or just one...

SCOTUS, of course, can hold a hearing and make any ruling it wants.

The problem is that the Senate will ignore it.

 

[2aguy]

Article 3....
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

And Trump wouldn't last past December and he was never going to be the nominee.......jeb bush and his 140 million dollars was going to be the nominee....

And then Trump got the nomination and where are we at now, sunshine?

With him getting real close to being President...and maybe even crossing the finish line ...remember where you are posting...

Nope, sunshine, and that is the problem, is it not? What you wanted is not going to happen.

 

[2aguy]

This problem is essentially one of the primacy of separation of powers.

SCOTUS could tell the Senate has to hold a hearing, and Senate can go, "nope, you can't make me."

The court will never have a hearing on this matter in order not to be told, "nope" with impunity.

No.....SCOTUS can't......the congress sets up the court system including the Supreme court....read Article 3 of the Constitution.......they could say the SCOTUS will have 1000 justices or just one...

SCOTUS, of course, can hold a hearing and make any ruling it wants.

The problem is that the Senate will ignore it.

The Court has no power on it's composition......they do not have that power.....

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Congress sets up the number of justices, not the President......they could reduce the court to one Justice if they wanted....

Then do it through legislation like it was done before

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

"One" might be able to argue that but I have a high degree of confidence that was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution.

I have a high degree of confidence that was precisely what they intended.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

There is no obligation to meet with the nominee or act on the matter in any way.

If you disagree, post the constitutional text that mandates otherwise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

According to whom?

I am not questioning the ability of Republicans to throw temper tantrums...it is what they do best

But for a party that wraps itself around the "intent" of our founding fathers, I doubt their intent was to allow Congress to do nothing in filling SCOTUS vacancies

Congress sets up the number of justices, not the President......they could reduce the court to one Justice if they wanted....

Then do it through legislation like it was done before

You would need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

 

[Southern Dad]

The problem is that President Barack H Obama doesn't know how to lead. It's not his fault. We elected someone with absolutely no leadership experience. He was never governor of a state. He was never mayor of a city. He was never even troop leader in the Boy Scouts. A president who is a leader would be able to get his or her pick for the Supreme Court approved by the Senate. He would be able to lead. Right now, we have the opportunity to put someone in office that actually knows something about the art of the deal. He actually wrote the book on it. This president has but one approach, his way. There is no highway option. He doesn't try to wheel and deal.

Both Bill Clinton and George W Bush had to deal with a Congress with both houses in the hands of the opposition party. Yet, both were still able to get things done. Hell, it could be argued that was the best time of the Clinton presidency, he actually had a balanced budget those two years and a surplus. Why were these two men able to get things done? Simple. They are leaders. They have leadership experience. They know how to lead.

Can you think of any way that you would approach getting the Senate to advise and consent on a nominee during your last year in office? President Obama can't.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There will never be in our life times another Scalia or Alito or Thomas.

Shrug.

Trump might find three. Or four.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution says "advice and consent". One could argue they "advised" when they told him to shove it up his ass.

Refusing to even meet with a nominee or give reasons why you object is not "advise"

There is no obligation to meet with the nominee or act on the matter in any way.

If you disagree, post the constitutional text that mandates otherwise.

since you are not a constitutional expert, we can skip your nonsense

trump will not be president

there will be no more Scalias

 

[Weatherman2020]

How does a Senator who claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution justify refusing to act on a Supreme Court nomination as required by the Constitution?

Learn what you rant about first.

The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, and for the silly one, Obama is not running for President.